We Knew Warmers Were Wacko...But Really?

[Crick]

No we aren't...we are talking about already being at your destination....Again, according to physics, a photon exists at EVERY point along its path at the same time...that includes the origin and the final destination. Again, sorry you are having so much trouble wrapping your head around this.

I'm throwing a bullshit flag on that one.

Let's see your source for that idea. You say "according to physics...". What physics would that be?

 

[SSDD]

No we aren't...we are talking about already being at your destination....Again, according to physics, a photon exists at EVERY point along its path at the same time...that includes the origin and the final destination. Again, sorry you are having so much trouble wrapping your head around this.

I'm throwing a bullshit flag on that one.

Let's see your source for that idea. You say "according to physics...". What physics would that be?

That would be the physics of relativity....sorry you can't wrap your mind around it any more than toddster. Do a bit of reading on relativistic time dilation....that is the reason that a photon exists simultaneously at every point along its path.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you were already at your destination you wouldn't need to "predict" anything.

But we're not talking about being at your destination, immediately, we're talking about knowing what will be at your destination, millions, hell billions, of years from now.

No we aren't...we are talking about already being at your destination....Again, according to physics, a photon exists at EVERY point along its path at the same time...that includes the origin and the final destination. Again, sorry you are having so much trouble wrapping your head around this.

Right, photons can experience not only the universe, but the future, as if they know every movement of every atom, as well as its temperature, now and at every moment in the future. LOL!

Future is an irrelevant term to an entity that doesn't experience time. Truly sorry you can't comprehend this.

I have looked. I've never seen a physicist claim a photon will not travel from a cooler object to a warmer one.

No need....the second law does that.

That is awesome! So how do they know if an alien, 1 million years from now, will move a hotter object into their path?

No need to know...they are already there. They exist at every point along their path from origin to destination at the same time. Sorry this is so hard for you but you are really beginning to sound like a 5 year old asking why repeatedly...you are still trying to impose time on an entity that doesn't experience time...or distance....or space.

I notice you clipped the experiment that proves how silly your claims are.

Let's try another experiment. I travel into Earth orbit with a laser. I calculate where the Sun will be in the time it takes the light from my laser to travel 1 AU. I fire my laser in that direction. Will the laser's photons (or waves, I don't care) leave the laser, or will they simply refuse to be emitted?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, it is. Simply put 0 K into the second formula, what answer do you get?

This is all to hard for you, isn't it....put 0 in place of T and Tc and P=0...like I said. Now, what do you think 0 means?

P, net energy loss, equals zero. Even though both objects keep radiating.

Nothing about net in either the SB equation or the Second Law of Thermodynamics....Making up stuff to insert into them doesn't make it true. Let me know when either is amended to say anything at all about net energy flow.

It is enough for me, because I understand it doesn't cause objects above 0K to stop radiating.

So you say, but that isn't what the equations say.

No net energy loss (or gain).

Again...nothing about net anything in either law. They are descriptions of gross energy flows.

Wasn't the SB formula I provided enough for you? Are you really this dense?

Sorry you don't understand that any more than the idea that photons don't experience time or distance or space...you see the equation and feel like you need to add something that isn't there...ie net. There is nothing about net in the SB law or the second law...they describe gross energy flows. Saying net when neither even mentions net is meaningless. If you can't work within what the laws actually say, then you are clearly wrong.

This is all to hard for you, isn't it....put 0 in place of T and Tc and P=0...like I said. Now, what do you think 0 means?

No, just in the place of Tc.

 

[IanC]

according to physics...they exist at all points between their origin and their destination at the same time.

So they can predict what will be in their path, 1 million light years away, in 1 million years, and depending on the temperature of that object, decide today if they will travel that way.
I'm not sure if that makes them smart or magic.

If you were already at your destination you wouldn't need to "predict" anything. Again...sorry you can't wrap your head around this but like it or not, that is how photons experience the universe if they actually exist as physics claims.

I've never seen a physicist make your photon (or wave) claims before.

Guess you never looked. There are plenty who postulate what it would be like to travel at the speed of light. According to physics, two observers anywhere along a photon's path could see the photon simultaneously if it were possible to see a photon. Again...sorry this is to big an idea to wrap your mind around...I don't believe in photons personally, but if they exist as science claims and you believe in them, then you are stuck believing in them as science claims. I am just pointing out what the universe is like for a photon according to science..

Your buddy Ian already commented on this and agreed that photons exist at every point along their path...that would mean that they are at their destination before they ever leave.

I agree that from the photon's frame of reference there is no time or distance.

the electric force and magnetism could not work without the virtual photon being able to 'test the waters' and find out whether a suitable particle was available to transfer energy to. otherwise it simply ceases to exist, but its lifetime is not long enough to actually travel from one particle to the other in our frame of reference, only in the timeless distanceless world of photons.

one of Feynman's more wacky ideas was that inertia stems from breaking the intricate web of photon paths that have been put in action but not completed. jus' sayin'

 

[Crick]

No we aren't...we are talking about already being at your destination....Again, according to physics, a photon exists at EVERY point along its path at the same time...that includes the origin and the final destination. Again, sorry you are having so much trouble wrapping your head around this.

I'm throwing a bullshit flag on that one.

Let's see your source for that idea. You say "according to physics...". What physics would that be?

That would be the physics of relativity....sorry you can't wrap your mind around it any more than toddster. Do a bit of reading on relativistic time dilation....that is the reason that a photon exists simultaneously at every point along its path.

Let's see a quote from a reputable source supporting your claim.

 

[IanC]

oh, I forgot to add that I totally disagree with SSDD's smart photon theory. thermodynamics is statistical in nature. it has nothing to do with individual atomic scale interactions.

 

[SSDD]

I notice you clipped the experiment that proves how silly your claims are.

If your claims had any merit, you could provide actual measured observation instead of a mind experiment. Clearly, you can't .

Let's try another experiment. I travel into Earth orbit with a laser. I calculate where the Sun will be in the time it takes the light from my laser to travel 1 AU. I fire my laser in that direction. Will the laser's photons (or waves, I don't care) leave the laser, or will they simply refuse to be emitted?

Lets try providing some actual observed evidence rather than fantasy....making up mind experiments for a situation that you obviously can't get your head wrapped around is pointless. By the way, are you under the impression that the laser itself doesn't constitute work? The second law says that energy won't move from cool to warm spontaneously...without some work having been done to make the move happen....a laser is the addition of work.

Show an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

 

[SSDD]

This is all to hard for you, isn't it....put 0 in place of T and Tc and P=0...like I said. Now, what do you think 0 means?

No, just in the place of Tc.

Then you have a radiator radiating into cooler surroundings....nothing strange going on there. What's your point homer? As Tc increases P decreases till finally P=0.....that's the whole point that you don't seem to be able to grasp.

 

[SSDD]

I agree that from the photon's frame of reference there is no time or distance.

the electric force and magnetism could not work without the virtual photon being able to 'test the waters' and find out whether a suitable particle was available to transfer energy to. otherwise it simply ceases to exist, but its lifetime is not long enough to actually travel from one particle to the other in our frame of reference, only in the timeless distanceless world of photons.

one of Feynman's more wacky ideas was that inertia stems from breaking the intricate web of photon paths that have been put in action but not completed. jus' sayin'

A virtual particle to test the water for a theoretical particle....and you don't question QM?

 

[SSDD]

Let's see a quote from a reputable source supporting your claim.

Look it up yourself....I gave you all the information you need. I understand that relativistic time dilation is something that you can't grasp but there is plenty of information out there....you have already proven that if you get information that proves you wrong, you ignore it and continue to spout your absurdities anyway....find your own...I'm not wasting my time on you.

Ignorance on the topic of relativity and the effects of moving at the speed of light is unusual for someone who claims to be an engineer...care to explain that? Never had a physics course?

 

[SSDD]

oh, I forgot to add that I totally disagree with SSDD's smart photon theory. thermodynamics is statistical in nature. it has nothing to do with individual atomic scale interactions.

Nothing smart about it....as you acknowledge...the photon exists at every point between its origin and its destination simultaneously...no need to know anything, or be in the least bit smart...radiative transfer is the same as conductive transfer...there is no such thing as back conduction....do you claim that energy must be smart to know that it can't back conduct?

These claims of smart particles are a logical fallacy on your part...it is an appeal to ridicule. You claim smart particles and snicker which you believe relieves you from addressing the original point....You really don't believe that particles must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics, but since there is nothing in the second law...or the SB law about net energy movement...or statistics....you offer up a logical fallacy and bypass the fact that the laws in question do not support your position.

I have asked before for one of you guys to let me know when the second law is rewritten to state that it is describing a statistical energy movement.....or net energy movements....or that they do not apply to atomic scale energy movements.....none of you have informed me of any such change so they still say what they say. Clearly it is a belief that you are repeating and not fact since the laws haven't been rewritten to support your claims. They still support mine.

 

[IanC]

I agree that from the photon's frame of reference there is no time or distance.

the electric force and magnetism could not work without the virtual photon being able to 'test the waters' and find out whether a suitable particle was available to transfer energy to. otherwise it simply ceases to exist, but its lifetime is not long enough to actually travel from one particle to the other in our frame of reference, only in the timeless distanceless world of photons.

one of Feynman's more wacky ideas was that inertia stems from breaking the intricate web of photon paths that have been put in action but not completed. jus' sayin'

A virtual particle to test the water for a theoretical particle....and you don't question QM?

I dont mind you quoting scientists from 150 years ago, and I dont mind you accepting their explanations of what they observed, but I do object to your belief that they magically had knowledge of atomic scale interactions even though they were unknown at the time. they measured the net results of large numbers of individual interactions and made generalized statements. we now know more.

QM is obviously odd and even counter intuitive at times. that's why so many experiments have been performed. unlike climate science QM has come through with flying colours.

 

[SSDD]

I dont mind you quoting scientists from 150 years ago, and I dont mind you accepting their explanations of what they observed, but I do object to your belief that they magically had knowledge of atomic scale interactions even though they were unknown at the time. they measured the net results of large numbers of individual interactions and made generalized statements. we now know more.

Since the statements of the laws have not been changed to state that they don't apply at the sub atomic level....or that they are only describing statistical estimations it is obvious that "new" science hasn't superseded old science. Till the laws are reworded they are as they are....and they are laws of nature...not laws of larger than atomic level interactions.

What you are claiming is hypothetical...unobserved.....unmeasured......untestable.......not real. You are telling me what you and others believe....not what has been tested, observed, and proven. It is fine to have a belief.....it isn't fine to state your belief as if it were fact.

QM is obviously odd and even counter intuitive at times. that's why so many experiments have been performed. unlike climate science QM has come through with flying colours.

Which explains why QM is in a constant state of crisis. Get over it Ian....QM is chock full of contradiction....it is an ad hoc explanation for things we are just now starting to wonder about...it isn't a proven branch of science....and no new physical laws have emerged from it and no old physical laws have been altered because of it....it is, at present groping in the dark, through a hole, with a blindfold covering the eyes and 3 layers of oven mitts covering the hands. It's great that we are trying to learn, but your belief that QM represents some sort of absolute, concrete, observed, tested, proven knowledge is analogous to the climate scientists belief in models.... Obviously, we don't know enough about the movement of energy in the atmosphere to put together any sort of reliable model and we don't know nearly enough about what happens at the sub atomic level to even begin to paint an actual picture of what is going on there....we are performing experiments and making up, what we think are plausible explanations for what we are seeing in the experiments...NOTHING MORE....so get over yourself.

 

[IanC]

oh, I forgot to add that I totally disagree with SSDD's smart photon theory. thermodynamics is statistical in nature. it has nothing to do with individual atomic scale interactions.

Nothing smart about it....as you acknowledge...the photon exists at every point between its origin and its destination simultaneously...no need to know anything, or be in the least bit smart...radiative transfer is the same as conductive transfer...there is no such thing as back conduction....do you claim that energy must be smart to know that it can't back conduct?

These claims of smart particles are a logical fallacy on your part...it is an appeal to ridicule. You claim smart particles and snicker which you believe relieves you from addressing the original point....You really don't believe that particles must be smart in order to obey the laws of physics, but since there is nothing in the second law...or the SB law about net energy movement...or statistics....you offer up a logical fallacy and bypass the fact that the laws in question do not support your position.

I have asked before for one of you guys to let me know when the second law is rewritten to state that it is describing a statistical energy movement.....or net energy movements....or that they do not apply to atomic scale energy movements.....none of you have informed me of any such change so they still say what they say. Clearly it is a belief that you are repeating and not fact since the laws haven't been rewritten to support your claims. They still support mine.

radiative transfer is not the same as conductive transfer. how on earth did you come up with THAT one?

my example of reactive (therefore virtual) photons in electric and magnetic force transfer does not carry over to radiative photons that are created simply to shed energy. there is no attractive or repulsive coloured light, there is no coloured attractive or repulsive force photons.

 

[IanC]

I dont mind you quoting scientists from 150 years ago, and I dont mind you accepting their explanations of what they observed, but I do object to your belief that they magically had knowledge of atomic scale interactions even though they were unknown at the time. they measured the net results of large numbers of individual interactions and made generalized statements. we now know more.

Since the statements of the laws have not been changed to state that they don't apply at the sub atomic level....or that they are only describing statistical estimations it is obvious that "new" science hasn't superseded old science. Till the laws are reworded they are as they are....and they are laws of nature...not laws of larger than atomic level interactions.

What you are claiming is hypothetical...unobserved.....unmeasured......untestable.......not real. You are telling me what you and others believe....not what has been tested, observed, and proven. It is fine to have a belief.....it isn't fine to state your belief as if it were fact.

QM is obviously odd and even counter intuitive at times. that's why so many experiments have been performed. unlike climate science QM has come through with flying colours.

Which explains why QM is in a constant state of crisis. Get over it Ian....QM is chock full of contradiction....it is an ad hoc explanation for things we are just now starting to wonder about...it isn't a proven branch of science....and no new physical laws have emerged from it and no old physical laws have been altered because of it....it is, at present groping in the dark, through a hole, with a blindfold covering the eyes and 3 layers of oven mitts covering the hands. It's great that we are trying to learn, but your belief that QM represents some sort of absolute, concrete, observed, tested, proven knowledge is analogous to the climate scientists belief in models.... Obviously, we don't know enough about the movement of energy in the atmosphere to put together any sort of reliable model and we don't know nearly enough about what happens at the sub atomic level to even begin to paint an actual picture of what is going on there....we are performing experiments and making up, what we think are plausible explanations for what we are seeing in the experiments...NOTHING MORE....so get over yourself.

just about every technology that incorporates electricity leads back to QM.

Newton's Laws were proven wrong by Relativity, but they are still useful for most general tasks. the Laws of Thermodynamics are proven wrong at the atomic scale by QM, but are still useful for most general conditions.

 

[SSDD]

radiative transfer is not the same as conductive transfer. how on earth did you come up with THAT one?

Since the distance between the origin of a photon and its destination is zero, the same rules for energy transfer would apply....energy doesn't know whether it is in the form of a photon or a wave, or a vibration...it is simply energy and it moves downhill constantly to a state of greater entropy.......law of nature ian.....not law of statistics....or law of systems.


By the way, regarding QM....from the Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics (2006) states in Introductory Article: Quantum Mechanics:

• QM in its present formulation is a refined and and successful instrument for the description of the non relativistic phenomena at the Planck scale, but its internal inconsistency is still standing on shaky ground.

It is a description of observations...and even has some predictive value, but as I said, it is not much more than stories made up to explain the results of experiments.....we still have virtually no idea of what is really happening...best plausible explanations is the current state of QM like it or not.

 

[IanC]

radiative transfer is not the same as conductive transfer. how on earth did you come up with THAT one?

Since the distance between the origin of a photon and its destination is zero, the same rules for energy transfer would apply....energy doesn't know whether it is in the form of a photon or a wave, or a vibration...it is simply energy and it moves downhill constantly to a state of greater entropy.......law of nature ian.....not law of statistics....or law of systems.


By the way, regarding QM....from the Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics (2006) states in Introductory Article: Quantum Mechanics:

• QM in its present formulation is a refined and and successful instrument for the description of the non relativistic phenomena at the Planck scale, but its internal inconsistency is still standing on shaky ground.

It is a description of observations...and even has some predictive value, but as I said, it is not much more than stories made up to explain the results of experiments.....we still have virtually no idea of what is really happening...best plausible explanations is the current state of QM like it or not.

Conduction is not propagated by photons, and certainly not at the speed of light.

QM describes basic things exceedingly well.

If there is confusion at the outer edges that is to be expected.

 

[SSDD]

just about every technology that incorporates electricity leads back to QM.

And about every conversation on catastrophic anthropogenic climate change leads back to CO2....it is entirely possible to see a thing happen and make up an entirely incorrect story about why it happens.... As I said, QM is ok as a predictor...but the stories we make up about what is happening at the sub atomic level are just that...best guesses about things we are just beginning to comprehend...to believe that we have any real understanding of what is actually happening at the sub atomic level is pure faith.

the Laws of Thermodynamics are proven wrong at the atomic scale by QM, but are still useful for most general conditions.

Nothing at the sub atomic level is proven...you throw that word around as if using it makes it so...it isn't. If any such thing had been proven, then the laws of physics would be rewritten to reflect this new "proof". They haven't. Suspicion is not a basis for proof..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I notice you clipped the experiment that proves how silly your claims are.

If your claims had any merit, you could provide actual measured observation instead of a mind experiment. Clearly, you can't .

Let's try another experiment. I travel into Earth orbit with a laser. I calculate where the Sun will be in the time it takes the light from my laser to travel 1 AU. I fire my laser in that direction. Will the laser's photons (or waves, I don't care) leave the laser, or will they simply refuse to be emitted?

Lets try providing some actual observed evidence rather than fantasy....making up mind experiments for a situation that you obviously can't get your head wrapped around is pointless. By the way, are you under the impression that the laser itself doesn't constitute work? The second law says that energy won't move from cool to warm spontaneously...without some work having been done to make the move happen....a laser is the addition of work.

Show an observed, measured example of energy moving spontaneously from a cool object to a warm object.

The second law says that energy won't move from cool to warm spontaneously...without some work having been done to make the move happen....a laser is the addition of work.
So it is possible for a photon to move from cooler to hotter.
Thanks for playing.